Unionism: Lazy is as lazy does for most

Monday

Feb 4, 2013 at 3:15 AM

Right to work proponents are taking another run at the Legislature with House Bill 323. While we continue to support giving workers the right to choose whether to pay union dues, HB 323 is dead on arrival.

Even when the Republican-controlled House, under Speaker Bill O’Brien, mustered support the veto-proof Republican Senate deep-sixed the effort the last time the battle was fought. Now with Democrat’s dominating the House under Speaker Terie Norelli, right to work doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hades of going anywhere.

But before we bid farewell to another failed effort, we would like to bring readers’ attention to one of the most salient reasons we can find for supporting right to work. And oddly, it doesn’t come from a right-to-work proponent.

Writing for the American Prospect, Richard Yeselson lays out an eloquent and persuasive case for rejecting right-to-work legislation. But buried deep within his more than 2,000-word essay is the seed for a rebirth of the union movement.

He writes:

“There is an argument sometimes made by union activists that unions should run persuasion campaigns to collect dues because the workers are more invested and supportive of an energized organization than when dues are passively/invisibly collected on a union’s behalf. There is some evidence that this is true. For example, the most powerful local union in the country, Culinary 226 in Las Vegas — a political powerhouse that ensures middle-class wages and benefits for hotel housekeepers — operates in a right-to-work state and gets close to 100% dues compliance. Thus the Culinary local has the classic ‘free rider’ problem — but the union solves the problem itself through its intense advocacy.”

Unfortunately for those who believe there should be a future for the union movement, Yeselson quickly dismisses the notion. Essentially, he says the union movement is too lazy to take on the challenge which could breathe new life into unionism.

“However, the invisibility and ease of collecting union dues in the non-right-to-work states has paradoxically made unions more dependent on these ‘automatic’ functions than ever,” continues Yeselson. “In short, most local unions today are logistically and, often, intellectually, atrophied. They lack the esprit, borne of success and militancy, of Culinary 226.”

Yeleson’s comments make some of the same points we have made in past editorials supporting right to work. While supporters argue the union movement accomplished much at one time — wage and hour laws, limits on child labor, etc. — there is no doubt the heirs to the power of Samuel Gompers have failed. Even in the eyes of union loyalists, they have failed to live up to the ideals of American Federation of Labor, which Gompers co-founder then served as its first president.

If New Hampshire’s union movement had the guts and gumption of Gompers, it would take up the challenge to so solidify its support among union workers that right to work would little impact membership — as in the case of Culinary 226 in Las Vegas.